Re: What is the most common type of collection or container?

On 2003-11-11 14:45, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> wrote:

> 
> Patrick - you couldn't be more right about the fact
> that inconsistencies could occur. The OWL testsuite
> illustrates that with 80 cases of InconsistencyTests
> (2 among them being rdf:List related).
> One point is that one can try to detect those
> inconsistencies. Something else is resolving them.
> There are ways to do such things (for instance
> "check your premises" leading to graphs that
> you have assumed to be the case, but which aren't
> and then you can choose but choosing is not global).

All true. But this presumes that you have some means to
"check your premises", which ultimately boils down to
which sources of knowledge you trust more than others
to be correct -- but again, if one has means to do so,
then one can avoid such rat holes altogether...

Really didn't mean to start up a major debate (honest ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick

> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> 
>                  
>                     Patrick Stickler
>                     <patrick.stickler        To:       Jos
> De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, "Sandro Hawke <sandro"
>                     @nokia.com>              cc:       ext Graham Klyne
> <GK@ninebynine.org>, <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>,
>                                               <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>                     2003-11-11 12:20         Subject:  Re: What is the most
> common type of collection or container?
>                     PM
>                  
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2003-11-11 01:51, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That's a very good point; we tested that given
>> 
>> :L rdf:first :a; rdf:rest :B. :B rdf:first :b; rdf:rest rdf:nil.
>> :M rdf:first :c; rdf:rest :C. :C rdf:first :d; rdf:rest rdf:nil.
>> :a owl:sameAs :c.
>> :b owl:sameAs :d.
>> 
>> we could OWL Full entail
>> 
>> :L owl:sameAs :M.
>> 
>> (and it was the case)
> 
> Well, that's all fine and dandy (though I'm left wondering what
> justifies the test cases, since nothing is said in the normative
> specs about the owl:FunctionalProperty nature of rdf:first and
> rdf:rest (if it's there, I couldn't find it...)
> 
> 
> Still, though, I think this still misses my key point. Even if
> OWL enables you to detect a contradiction, you can only resolve
> it by differentiating between statements based on their source
> (authority/trustworthiness being inferrable from the source).
> 
> I.e. if
> 
> :L rdf:first :a .
> :L rdf:rest :B .
> :B rdf:first :b .
> :B rdf:rest rdf:nil .
> 
> syndicated with
> 
> :B rdf:rest :C .
> :C rdf:first :c .
> :C rdf:rest rdf:nil .
> 
> entails
> 
> :C owl:sameAs rdf:nil .
> 
> (and it should, if rdf:rest is in fact an owl:FunctionalProperty)
> 
> Then your OWL application is faced with a contradiction. Even if
> rdf:rest is not an owl:FunctionalProperty, you're still left with
> a dilemma.
> 
> Only one of the assertions
> 
> :B rdf:rest rdf:nil .
> :B rdf:rest :C .
> 
> can be correct. But exactly how does one know which is correct,
> whether the list ends at :B or continues on to :C?
> 
> OWL might allow you to catch munged lists, but it doesn't enable
> you to resolve them, or to simply avoid them by filtering assertions
> by source/authority/trustworthiness.
> 
> Tracking the source of such assertions is necessary to either
> resolve the contradiction or avoid it altogether -- yet if you
> have the machinery for tracking the source of assertions, you
> don't need the RDF list machinery to define collections, since
> you can just use rdf:member or any similar property and limit
> ones focus (as needed/desired) to particular sources. I.e.
> 
> :src1 :L rdf:member :a .
> :src1 :L rdf:member :b .
> :src2 :L rdf:member :c .
> :src3 :src1 rdf:type :TrustedSource .
> 
> SELECT ?member
> WHERE  {?src :L rdf:member ?member}
> AND    {?x ?src rdf:type :TrustedSource};
> 
> or even
> 
> SELECT ?member
> WHERE  {?src :L rdf:member ?member}
> AND    {?src = :src1};
> 
> No special list constructs, nor special APIs to manipulate them
> are needed. And one can be *sure* of the completeness and validity
> of the collection insofar as the trusted and/or explicitly specified
> sources are concerned.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 07:54:59 UTC